# The Big Wait

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, Aug 16, 2013.

1. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I am in the process of describing the details of that image of that photon which represents approximately 20 quantum periods of action as it travels from left to right, as TruthSeeker has determined.

Moving in that direction, the electron in terms of energy content at rest from the wild guess was 381,239,356 quanta. Remember we are simply using the conceptual figures for talking purposes to estimate the total energy of particles in various energy density environments and to visualize various relationships between particles and environments.

Keeping that in perspective, the containment ratio of the electron is:
Total quanta = 381,239,356
381,239,356 = 4/3 pi r^3
381,239,356 / 4.1887902 = r^3 = 91,014,196
r = ~450 quantum units
Surface = 4 pi r^2
r = 450; r^2 = 202,500; times pi = 636,172; times 4 = 2,544,690 surface quanta
Divide by 2 to get the rough estimate of the O/I (out-flow/in-flow) number of quanta each quantum period = ~1,272,345
and then to get the containment ratio we divide the total quanta of the electron by the O/I and we get approximately:
300:1 for the containment ratio, meaning the total rest energy of an electron is 300 times the amount of energy out-flowing/inflowing during each quantum period or 300 quantum periods required to refresh the total energy of the electron.

Compare that to the 3,672 quantum periods for the proton, and we have a ratio of about 12:1, proton to electron, as well as having the O/I (out-flow/in-flow) of energy in quanta for each. We also have the energy relationship of 1,836 to 1, proton to electron. These relationships may seem "so what", but if we are going to apply the forces of gravity and energy density equalization as defined in my model, that type of hidden variable data would be necessary in drawing a map of the energy density gradient of some tiny space containing those particles; gradient mapping to predict motion.

(3035)

3. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Let's look at that photon composed of 1000 quanta traveling at the speed of light. Using the simple math from above, since we select the total quanta, we can easily calculate the the containment ratio, and thus the number of quantum periods it takes to refresh all of the selected photon's energy:

To find r, the radius of our circular cow, I mean of our photon, we use 1000 as the volume, volume is 4/3 pi r^3, so we find r by working backwards.
1000 = 4/3 pi r^3
4/3 pi = 4.1887902
1000/4.1887902 = r^3
238.7 = r^3
r = ~6.2 quantum units
Using 6.2 for r we can find the surface quantum units of our photon
with the formula 4 pi r^2
r = 6.2; r^2 = 38.44; times pi = 120.76; times 4 = ~483 surface quanta
Divide by 2 to get the rough estimate of the out-flowing/in-flowing (O/I) number of quanta each quantum period = ~242
and then to get the containment ratio we divide the total quanta of the photon by the O/I and we get approximately 4:1, or 4 quantum periods required to refresh the total energy of the photon.

That gives us so far, a proton with a 3,672:1 containment ratio, an electron with a 300:1 containment ratio, and a selected photon with a 4:1 containment ratio. We hypothesize that the photon has an O/I (out-flow/inflow) of ~191 million quanta per quantum period, the electron has an O/I of 1.3 million quanta per quantum period, and the photon has an O/I of a mere whisper of 242 quanta per quantum period.

Each of our particles is in motion and so all particles are leaving a trail of outflowing energy in space. The O/I is per quantum period associated with each particular particle, so there is a new "balloon" of energy quanta for each quantum period in the spherical energy out flowing from each particle, and that establishes the gravitational gradient in the medium of space.

Note that each overlapping balloon in the photon's lopsided trailing energy balloon depicted in post #58 contains ~242 quanta. The same kind of picture can be visualized for each particle, though the trailing energy balloons will not be nearly as lopsided since only the photon travels at the speed of light. Each overlapping balloon trailing of the proton will contain ~191 million spherically expanding quanta vs. only 1.3 million quanta in each overlapping trailing balloon of the electron, and a mere 242 quanta for each of the photons overlapping trailing balloons, keeping in mind the difference in frequency of the emission of a new balloon based on the differing length of the quantum period for each type of particle.

So what, you say?

We have now equated the energy of a proton, an electron, and a photon, in my model, for talking purposes, and we have those relationships in terms of a wild guess at energy quanta, and comparable refresh rates in (the elusive) quantum periods. But what is also convenient, we have the out flowing and inflowing gravitational energy in equivalent quanta for each particle for each one of their respective quantum periods, recognizing that the quantum period is quite different for each particle. That information allows us hypothetically to draw the trailing energy balloons for each particle, which is a complicated process, but with a cray computer or two, no problem, right, lol.

If we know what particles occupy a given patch of space, we can equate the particles to quanta, and the O/I of those particles then allows us to draw a picture of the energy density gradient (gravitational profile) telling us the relative future motion of each particle or object based on the hypothetical physical mechanics of my model.

As a hobbyist science enthusiast, and an advocate of the "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics, that is where I stand so far at rationalizing the existence of local reality.

(3091]

Last edited: Oct 31, 2013

5. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
For the record, I'm going to continue on with the concept of a gravitational gradient in the medium of space that, in my model, equates to the curvature of space time in GR in regard to telling objects how and where to move. I'm also going to elaborate on my concept of the photon as depicted in post #58 and how it relates to my concept of wave-particle duality in the two slit experiments. But at the same time, I am already going back and rewriting the earlier material to highlight the internal consistency between the macro and the micro, showing how the macro process of Arena Action has certain symmetries with the micro process of Quantum Action.

My next post is the first in the rewrite series ...

(3357)

7. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
The Big Wait

Introduction

What caused the Big Bang, what causes the presence of matter, and what causes gravity?

To me, "The Big Wait" is for the scientific community to answer those three questions to my satisfaction (not to someone else's satisfaction, mind you). That will take a consensus on both the micro and the macro levels of order, i.e. Big Bang Theory featuring General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. I anticipate a big wait, because when discussing the macro level, we will need a consensus on the preconditions to the Big Bang, and when discussing Quantum Mechanics, we will need a consensus on a quantum mechanical solution to gravity.

In a nut shell, we are not on the verge of the answers at either level of order, micro or macro. In regard to the macro realm, a consensus is not likely to happen soon on the topic of preconditions, given the fact that the current Big Bang Theory consensus does not even start with the "Bang", it starts 10^-43 seconds afterward. Nor is the thinking of the current researchers in the field of Quantum Physics likely to give us a consensus solution to the mechanics of gravity, given that the current research environment favors the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that says there isn't any local reality at all.

I'm a supporter of the less popular view that there is a quantum local reality, i.e. "hidden variables", and that if we could know them, they would not only answer my three questions, but in addition, would explain everything necessary to connect the micro and macro realms into a unified theory of everything.

The major issue to me is my problem with the Copenhagen interpretations and their view of "non-locality", i.e. there is no local reality unless you accept "spooky action at a distance"; faster than light or instantaneous communication over distance. That issue can be explained by what it is you are supporting when you advocate the non-local view.

Let me explain by giving you my layman level understanding of the situation. My understanding is that in spite of elaborate experiments to demonstrate non-locality, often called "spooky action at a distance", the experimenters do not go so far as to say the issue of non-locality is a proven fact. Hidden variables will remain a possibility, and might yet be found as we engage in the process of exploring the depths of particles and the medium of space.

So to explain, whether you are a Copenhagen interpretation supporter or not, we probably agree that when we entangle two electrons, one with spin up and one with spin down for example, we know that if we measure them, one is always going to be spin up and one is always going to be spin down. That is generally accepted quantum physics. Entanglement is a fact.

Further, we will agree on the fact that if you separate the two entangled electrons, any distance apart, they maintain that same entanglement, i.e. when we measure their spins, one will be spin up and the other will be spin down. No problem there either. Entanglement endures.

From there though, we begin to get into territory where the "Hidden Variables" view deviates from the Copenhagen consensus. The consensus is that the two electrons have the two characteristics, spin up and spin down, in superposition. Technically, as a layman, I could accept the idea of superposition if they are simply saying, "because we don't know which of the two particles has which spin we call that superposition of the two states". If that was what they meant, they could be just using the term "superposition" to mean "we don't know which particle has which spin, up or down".

But that would be a misrepresentation of what the strict Copenhagen interpretation means, and of what the term "superposition" is intended to represent. It says that not only do we not know which of the two particles has which spin, but until we observe one of them, they both have the characteristics of spin up and down in superposition; neither particle is spin up or spin down, but instead both are in superposition for the spin trait.

To complicate it a little, superposition then would mean that both particles cannot be thought of as having both spin up and spin down simultaneously, but instead, neither particle has spin up or spin down at all; they each have just a probability of being "up" or "down" that will be determined by random chance when we get around to observing the spin of one or the other. So we should go ahead and measure one of them.

Then, when we measure the first particle, as if to assure us that there is no local reality, something "impossible but true" happens, they say. They interpret the result of the act of measuring the first partner as an event that determined its spin right then. Then instantly and at faster than the speed of light we have determined the spin of the other particle even if it is somewhere across the universe, implying that something happened at the instant of measurement, and not before, that collapsed the wave function of the second particle and determined its spin; spooky acton at a distance.

Or is it? What would be different if both particles really had their spin determined back at the moment of entanglement? Would we then say that their originally endowed spin states endured, regardless of how far they were separated, and no matter when the measurement of the spin of the first of the two particles was performed? If that was the case then there wouldn't be any spooky action at a distance, and there would simply be aspects of the local reality that we are not yet capable of observing; a hidden reality of quantum mechanics going on at some foundational level of order, deep into the nature of particles and the composition of the medium of space, beyond the limits of our ability to observe.

You might be able to see why I call this the Big Wait. If we aren't close to agreement on the cause of the Big Bang, i.e. preconditions, and we aren't close to a determination of non-locality vs. hidden local reality, let along a quantum solution to gravity, then the scientific community still has work ahead of it before General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are reconciled into a unified theory.

My view is that the common denominator between the two, lies in the understanding of how particles form and function across the full range of energy density environments that are offered up by nature. I am hopeful that there is an as yet undiscovered foundational medium of space and an unobservable but real quantum action process at that level governing the hidden nature of particles and the nature of the medium of space. My label for the missing ingredient governing both is "gravity waves" that establish an energy density gradient at all points in the medium of space! Instead of "spooky action at a distance", we have a gravity profile in space that tells objects where and how to move.

I have a hobby devoted to building a scenario of unification between the macro Big Bang (BB) model and the micro interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (QM). My hobby is to have a current personal model of the cosmology of the universe that is both internally consistent, and not inconsistent with any scientific observations and data. This model, which I have often referred to as "my so-called model", is not supposed to be me "doing" science", but instead, it is "me learning more and more about science" so that I can evolve my model as I wait for the scientific community to provide a consensus on the real answers to my questions, if there are real answers.

To be continued ...

(3357)

Last edited: Nov 7, 2013
8. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626

The question at this point is, could we reasonably put together a picture of the gravitational gradient of the foundational medium surrounding a defined set of objects, moving relative to each other in space, that could tell us what the future motion of those objects would be?

If, as I hypothesize, the gravitational gradient approach to motion can be equated to the curvature of spacetime, then the EFEs are the math; the math is already done, and in previous threads invoked the EFEs to represent the math for my model. The distinction is that the mechanics that I invoke are supposed to replace the concept of the curvature of spacetime and give the same results for the predictions of future motion.

You may be familiar with the quote that goes something like this, "The curvature of spacetime tells matter where to move, and matter tells spacetime how to curve". In my model, the presence of matter is maintained by inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy components, so the space surrounding matter is filled with gravitational wave energy traversing the space between objects that tells objects where to move. The "how to move" is in the mechanics of the process of quantum action that I have often described. There is no corresponding mechanics to accompany General Relativity.

The picture is that particles that are stable, have sufficient inflowing wave energy coming through the foundational medium of space to replace the spherically out flowing gravitational wave energy component that particles are constantly emitting. Consider this image as a particle composed of four quanta, captured using our freeze-frame tool.

There are various zones of wave energy density within the tiny particle. Those zones marked #4 have the lowest wave energy density and are at the surface of the particle. All of the outflowing wave energy component exits the particle as those 4's expand spherically. You can visualize them forming the spherical out flow from the particle into the surrounding space, and you will note that a large portion of their spherical expansion simply sends energy back into the other zones.

Note also, that the zone marked #1 contains the highest energy density, and a close look reveals that each of the four quanta of the tiny particle contributes energy to that zone. My hypothesis is that the energy density in zone #1 is four times the energy density in each of the #4 zones.

Via the Quantum Action process, I hypothesize that zone #1 is continually feeding energy to the other zones to replace the out flow from zone #4. Therefore, if our tiny particle is stable, there will be wave energy flowing into the particle from the gravitational wave energy arriving from the surrounding space. The following image has more detail:

If you can see the four blue arrows, they represent the out flow from the particle as described above coming from zone #4. Also, I have used the large yellow arrow to represent the net directional gravitation wave energy inflow. The smaller red arrow represents the future motion of the tiny particle, given the gravitational gradient of the space surrounding it.

(3563)

Last edited: Nov 12, 2013
9. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Model of the photon as depicted in post #58 continued ...

I have a laser setup and have duplicated the basic two slit experiments on my own as a prop to look at while I contemplate the results of those type of experiments. There is general agreement that the interference pattern observed when two slits are open supports the wave theory of light. When I close one slit the interference pattern goes away and the pattern is a smooth curve.

My experiments are not able to send one photon at a time through the slits, but experiments show that the same patterns show up even at the lowest light intensities possible, which are intended to send one photon at a time. If light photons do have particle characteristics then the particles would go through one or the other, but not both slits when fired one at a time.

Look at my visualization of the photon ...

The bundle of energy at the front of the photon wave configuration represents the quanta emitted by an electron at the speed of light. In my model, that is the photon particle.

Remember that in my model a particle's presence is maintained by the process of quantum action which means that the quanta that make up the particle are each functioning as wave/spot/waves sequentially and never as both wave and spot at the same time. There being 1000 quanta in our photon in this example simply means that at any freeze-frame of this photon particle there will be the equivalent of 1000 high density spots in various stages of individual energy density; the spot being the highest energy density state, and the extended spherical expansion of the wave that emerges from each spot has declining energy density until that wave is interrupted by converging with similar expanding waves, whereupon new high density spots are formed.

The wave/spot/wave action of a particle requires inflowing wave energy to be present from the surrounding space to replace the wave energy escaping from the particle's surface. My hypothesis is that all wave energy traverses the medium of space at the speed of light, so a photon traveling at the speed of light will get all of its inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion.

That photon is a particle with mass in my model. The mass consists of a number of energy quanta emitted by an electron as the energy level of the electron drops. Quanta are defined as the smallest meaningful unit of energy that can cause a change in the total energy of a particle in my model; a little vague but it means that particles contain energy and their change in energy occurs in quantum increments, for talking purposes.

"The smallest meaningful amount of energy" is defined as one quantum in my model, but right away I should note that a quantum of energy entering or leaving a particle is not occurring one quantum at a time. Earlier I came up with the wild guess at the number of quanta in an electron and a proton using the two ratios, 1) the ratio between the surface area and the volume of the particle, and 2) the ratio between the rest energy of the electron vs. the rest energy of the proton. What I want to note here is that there aren't little quanta of energy flying about in space, entering and leaving particles in tact. There are waves of energy coming and going in all directions at the speed of light, and they are composed of multiple quanta forming a combined wave front, and not discrete individual quanta.

Where the phrase, "the smallest meaningful amount of energy that can affect a particle" comes in is that the inflowing wave energy component and the out flowing wave energy component of any particle at rest must be precisely in balance both directionally and in the amount of energy they contain or else the particle mass changes and the particle moves. Any imbalance of the tiniest amount will cause a change in the motion of the particle. So by definition I am establishing the quantum as being the smallest increment for talking purposes, but it does not mean that all of the gravitational wave energy that is traversing the foundational medium of space is in quanta, far from it. The energy in space is wave energy and each wave is multiple quantum units.

I don't think that explanation is sufficient to convey the entire concept of "the smallest meaningful amount of energy", but I'm open to discussing it further at any time. But where I'm going with this is that the wave-particle nature of the photon can be considered as being the quanta that make up the initial particle emitted when an electron changes state, and the energy in the so-called lopsided trailing wave energy balloon that is continually produced as the exchange of energy that sustains the presence of the photon takes place.

Our photon in freeze-frame from earlier had 1000 quanta when it was emitted as a particle, but the particle immediately had a certain amount of out flowing spherical wave energy that also expands at the speed of light. Using the concept of the containment ratio of a particle of 1000 quanta we get an O/I (out flow/inflow) of about 242 quanta, giving us a relationship that we can use to determine the energy in the wave front of the photon. That energy includes the 1000 quanta traveling at the speed of light plus the energy in the front edge of each spherical out flowing wave because those waves expand at the speed of light, and so their fronts keep up with the quanta bundle as it traverses space.

This means that there is no individual photon particle traveling alone through space. Each photon particle is accompanied by its lopsided trailing balloon of out flowing wave energy and the leading surface of that balloon keeps right up with the particle itself.

How does this come into play in the two slit experiments? The broadened wave front goes through both slits while the narrow particle goes through one or the other (or neither). If you shoot one photon at a time at two slits, it has the potential to go through both slits because of the broadened wave front. It even has the potential to be detected by two different photon counters that will "see" the photon in its wave state if the portion of the wave front going through each slit has sufficient intensity. This means that the photon particle looks to be in two places at once, but in my model, it is the same photon that has a broadened wave front, widened by the expanding wave fronts of portions of each spherically out flowing wave that the particle is continually emitting.

The interference pattern demonstrates the peaks and troughs of the intensity of the photon wave fronts. That intensity is highest at the mid point of the front where the particle is, but the energy tapers off smoothly as the distance from the center of the front increases, thus each photon wave front has its peak intensity in the middle, and its trough intensity is a given distance away from the center, determined by the number of quanta in the photon particle and the containment ratio of that particle.

In my model the size of the photon wave front from trough to peak to trough equates to the wave length; there is only one wave length associated with the individual photon particle and that is the width of the particle with the leading edge of its balloon energy. The balloon energy is refreshed over multiple quantum periods and the number of quantum periods of meaningful out flowing wave energy in the balloon equates to the containment ratio divided by the O/I.

This is the first time I have written out this part of my model, and I'm sure I will want to rewrite this post a few times before I get comfortable with it. Fortunately, I started this post with the acknowledgement that as a laymen science enthusiast, what I say about light will be taken lightly.

(3644)

Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
10. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
The 1234 diagram above employes the "spherical cow" tool, but there are some supposed forces in that tiny environment that would affect the shape, retarding the spheres from the geometrically spherical shape, when looked at from the perspective (locality) of the moving particle. On the other hand, when looked at from the perspective of the medium of space, the shape of the wave expansion is affected solely by the gravitational gradient of the medium in that locality.

Therefore, in my model, the observation of the elongation of the wave expansion is governed by one's relative perspective to the particle, and by the gravitational gradient of the medium in that locality. The mechanics of the waves as they expand are governed by the same combination of invariant forces, but your physical perspective of events establishes your locality, and imposes your "locality" on what those invariant mechanics will look like to you.

In my model the two primary forces at work are gravity and energy density equalization. Gravity waves fuel the particle by providing the inflowing component of energy that sustains the presence of the particle. Energy density equalization is the force the drives the out flow from the boundary of the particle's space as the tiny high density spots at the surface expand to equalize with the surrounding density. Those are all governed by invariant mechanics in my model.

The combined result of those mechanics is that the photons generally move in a straight forward direction because the energy replacement is from that direction, and therefore fuels high density spot at the "front" first and retards the formation of high density spot in the "rear". The location of the particle advances by the wave/spot/wave action and so it moves in the direction of the highest inflowing gravitational wave energy density.

Motion therefore retards the "spherical" expansion of the wave energy out of the high density spots from the perspective of the particle.

This is the 1234 diagram adjusted for retardation of the out flow of a moving particle:

What this boils down to is that though the photon emits gravity waves, that does not mean that those gravity waves can speed out in front of the photon particle as if the particles could be considered "at rest" relative to the emitted gravity waves. The gravity waves that the photon emits can only just keep up with the speeding particle itself, relative to the medium of space, creating the lopsided trailing energy balloon from the perspective of the wave-particle.

The photon's lopsided trailing energy ballon represents natures most extreme lopsidedness, but all moving objects have "lopsidedness" in regard to the gravitational impression they leave in the gravitational gradient of the medium of space from the perspective of their individual localities.

The diagram of my photon, first presented in post #58, also employs the "spherical cow" tool. To be more realistic according to my model, the spheres of out flowing wave energy should be drawn elongated relative to the photon particle. That would allow for the wavelength (the breadth of the wave front), to change relative to the density of the medium through which it passes. The energy in the broadened wave stays the same but the wavelength changes. The change is that the breadth widens and the wavelength increases as the density of the medium increases, while the total energy of the wave-particle remains the same. That is a topic for future discussion.

This is a rough sketch of the photon to replace the "spherical cow" approach with the elongated view:

My point for this clarification is to suggest that the "spherical cow" tool helps with the initial visualization of the photon in my model, but to describe "reality" in terms of the "hidden variables" approach, there is retardation of the spheres relative to the direction of motion. I use the word "retardation" intentionally because there are other quantum effects in my model in regard to the wavelength of the photon. One being the explanation for the photoelectric effect and the subsequent energy of electrons that are displaced by the impact of photon wave-particles on the surface of metals. But be reminded that these are the thoughts about topics related to light and gravity from the perspective of a layman science enthusiast.

(3790)

11. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Deleted by QW. Revision in the works.

Last edited: Nov 27, 2013
12. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I guess it suffices to say that I support of the position that there is a reality governed by hidden variables that involves mechanics that underpin all events at a foundational level of action.

Note that "action" at the foundational level is far removed from any event that can be observed, and though we can, and I do hypothesize about the nature of things at the foundational level, there is no consensus on the natural laws that govern those events, or on if there even are natural laws that operate there beside randomness and the laws of probability.

I know some of the arguments for "spooky action", and I also know that for the past hundred years nothing as come along that allows for a consensus in the scientific community on one interpretation or another in quantum mechanics. Each new thrust of "evidence" for the wave or particle nature of matter, or for the continuous or discrete nature of action, or for local or non-local action is meet with a new round of debate and no consensus. In this century so far, the evidence has gotten quite technical and the debate has become far removed from what the layman science enthusiast can enter into with any confidence.

It is my understanding that at the professional level the new evidence is subject to interpretation, and the experiments are sophisticated beyond the reach of mere enthusiasts. I have my model that I enjoy keeping internally consistent, and I enjoy researching instances where scientific observations and data challenge that internal consistency, and that is where I am in my current efforts. I am at the point of trying to understand the data related to the latest experiments involving wave interference that is purported to support non-locality.

It is taking me a long time to get to where I want to be in my understanding of the experiments and data produced, but I have not given up, and I don't think anyone can help, even if there was someone who wanted to. I'm slowly working my way through "The Quantum Challenge, Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", Second Edition, by George Greenstein and Arthur G. Zajonc, and it is slow going. The post that I decided to delete above was an example of how difficult it is for a layman to understand just how and why professionals are certain about determinations made as a result of the anti-coincidence experiments. They are said to support a determination of the particle nature of the photon and have resulted in single photon experiments. I am at the stage of trying to understand the delayed quantum erasure experiments that bring back the interference patterns in the data produced by single photon and single electron experiments, i.e. the latest experiments, and the implication of non-locality derived from those experiments. I haven't given up, I'm just giving the hobby some space while I inch my way through the latest experiments.

13. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I wanted to post the revised version of the post that I deleted. This post corrects the errors that I caught myself making when interpreting the results of the experiments I have been reading about in the referenced work.

This is about what a stream of single photons will do, 1) as the photons traverse the medium of space that contains the gravitation gradient, and 2) when the photon encounters particles or objects in its path, like slits and half mirrored beam splitters.

There was a 1986 advance in technique referenced below that allowed scientists the ability to determine that there is actually a photon particle that displays wave and particle characteristics. This determination involves a source of photons emitted during a change in state of the electrons in target atoms. It involves electrons that are excited by lasers and then allowed to drop back down to the ground state, emitting two photons of different frequencies in the process. This is ideal for their experiments because they can use one photon to signal the decay event, and the other photon can be useful experimentally.

Using a technique to look for light from a single photon that is passed through a beam splitter to be registered by two photon detectors coincidently, they concluded that they had isolated single photons by limiting the intensity of the source of the photons to a single electron source. That determination was made when there were zero coincidences detected in their anti-coincidence experiment. They were able to report in 1986 that single photons had been detected.

Further experiments using this single photon technology were conducted and they were able to show both the particle nature of the single photons and the fact that even individual particles displayed a wave nature when a sufficiently large number of individual photons were "fired" consecutively at a beam splitter creating two directional sources of individual photons.

They could change the length of the path between the two sources and create a clear phase shift between the two paths. They concluded that the photon which should take one or the other of the paths, appears to have taken both paths.

This is the point where the same old question arrises. Did the "interference pattern" that was measured, form as a result of the individual photons taking both paths? The possibility of a single photon taking both paths was supposed to be eliminated because they had isolated their source to send only one photon at a time, and their anti-coincidence experiment had confirmed that it would take one or the other but not both paths, i.e. individual photons could not be split.

The number of counts in the two detectors of their Interference Experiment for Single Photons are plotted as a function of the phase difference between the two paths. They created the phase difference by altering the length of one path.

This is where it is going to get complicated. They mechanically caused the two sources to be out of phase by adjusting one mirror to change the length of the path of one source. They already know that the individual photons from a single source will strike the detectors in what looks like a random pattern

In the descriptions of the photon in my model, though I could never gear up to do anything experimentally to support this hypothesis, the single atom source of individual photons does send one photon at a time, so in my model photons have particle characteristics as described earlier. That aspect of my model corresponds with the 1986 determination that photon particles have been produced, and that single photon experiments could be conducted.

Further, in my model, that particle has a wave front that is broader than the particle itself because of the lopsided trailing energy balloon caused by the continual out flowing wave energy of the photon particle. You may have to go back to refresh your memory on what causes the lopsided trailing balloon of energy, and you have to keep in mind that the point of reference determines the shape of the balloon that you would perceive.

The phase shift measured and reported in the experiment of P. Grangier, G. Roger and A. Aspect, "Experimental evidence for a photon anti-correlation effect on a beamsplitter," Europhys. Lett., vol. 1, pp. 173-179 (1986) is discussed in chapter 2 pp 38-39 of "the Quantum Challenge" book I am reading, and the diagram of the phase difference between the two paths is from their work. Their conclusion is that up until then, the double slit experiments answered the question about the wave nature of photons, while other experiments answered the question about the particle nature of photons. The experiments now being discussed did not answer the question one way or the other, but they posed a question that is difficult to answer. They sum up the work of Grangier et al. by saying that the light appears as a wave in certain circumstances and a particle in other, and that the same thing is true of of electrons, neutrons, and atoms. "Wave-particle duality forces upon us a the necessity of a radical revision in our thinking".

So in my model, the banded pattern result of two slit experiments, or of two converging paths when the wave splitters are used to produce two paths of light, recognizes the wave nature of the photon, and the smooth curve that is characteristic of the single slit experiments represents the particle nature. But even in the particle state, there is a probabilistic curve caused by the fact that a measured or observed photon can be somewhere within a given phase associated with the low to the high energy across the forward surface of the broadened wave energy balloon.

Therefore, with two beams of individual photons with different length paths, each beam will plot out their own pattern on an individual detector, and the two patterns will be out of phase. There need not be any actual interference between beams to cause that result, and there need not be any individual photons taking both paths to produce that result. But that result is consistent with my characterization of the wave-particle nature of the photon.

My conclusion is that the particle nature of the photon has been confirmed by the anti-coincidence experiments, and the wave nature of the photon is evidenced in the interference pattern of the standard two slit experiments. Further, when using single photons, though each detector will record a smooth curve pattern corresponding to the phase nature of the individual photons, there will be a predictable curved shape to the count of the occurrences by location on the detector, and that curve will have to do with the point in the phase that each photon that is being counted is in when it strikes the detector. The phase difference used in the graphic on page 39 of Greenstein's and Zajonc"s, "The quantum Challenge", highlights the smooth phase curve that individual photons will plot out on a single detector, as captured by measuring their phase difference caused by altering their individual paths. Using my model of the photon to explain the graphic, no actual interference is caused by individual photon experiments, and no photons are taking both paths.

As I continue on through the book, I will post about any revisions I have to make to the above post as the results of the other experiments as they are revealed. The first hurdle I will encounter is the "delayed choice" discussion that address just how radical our revision in thinking needs to be to address the single photon and single electron experiments that are being interpreted as "spooky action at a distance", i.e. that confirm the Copenhagen interpretations of QM, as opposed to my model which supports the Hidden Variables interpretations.

(4757)

Last edited: Dec 27, 2013
14. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Just in case you are interested, the first edition of "The Quantum Challenge" is available on-line. I get it here:
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/resu...3MyZkYj1ubGViayZ0eXBlPTAmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl

I bought the second edition which was published in 2006, so any differences in the on-line version, and what I post as quotes from the book are explained by the different editions.

The delayed choice experiments might seem to support spooky action because the strict particle nature or the strict wave nature cannot be settled by any of the new experiments, and as a result, wave-particle behavior is sometimes offered up to be an example of the mystery of nature that supports non-locality. This wave-particle nature of particles is where the scientific community seems to convey the impression that there has to be a radical change in our thinking. Is it supposed to mean that if we accept duality we have to accept non-locality? You can get that impression from this statement made by authors in "The Quantum Challenge", page 39:

"One possibility exists that would account for the phenomena we discussed so far. According to this point of view, electrons, neutrons, atoms, and light are not really behaving in an incomprehensible manner after all. Rather, as they travel toward the experimental apparatus they "sense" its setup, and they adjust their nature accordingly. If they sense an experiment capable of demonstrating interference, they become waves. But if they sense one capable of demonstrating anti-coincidence or the like, they become particles. We might refer to such a point of view as a "conspiracy theory" of physical reality."

They go on to reiterate the necessity for a radical revision in our thinking. However, my model of the photon, and of the wave energy nature of all particles, is consistent with the the observed action of wave-particle duality, so it is not spooky action and it is not a confirmation of "non-locality"; duality is a confirmation of the duality, lol. The photon in my model, and indeed all particles in my model have both wave and particle characteristics. What determines how they are observed, i.e. the state that we observe them in, is the nature of the experiments we are employing, and of the observations that we make as a result.

Wave-particle duality does not confirm non-locality or spooky action at a distance in my model. Let me explain the "conspiracy of nature" mentioned by the authors in terms of my model. Yes, there is a way that photons traveling toward an apparatus can be alerted as to the nature of the experiment before they get there. That is not spooking in my model, because the message is imprinted in the medium of space as a gravitation gradient associated with the apparatus that lies ahead; that apparatus is sending out gravitational wave energy simply on the basis that the apparatus is composed of particles, and particles continually exchange their energy content through inflowing and out flowing energy wave action. The photon's motion through the medium is affected by the gravitational gradient of the medium it is traversing. Therefore the photon's motion and path is affected by the presence of the apparatus.

That fact does not reveal any conspiracy of nature though, it simply reveals the details of the nature of particles and of the medium of space in which they exist; hidden variables as opposed to spooky action and non-locality.

As to photons being able to discern between one slit or two ahead of time, yes, but that does not spark any adjustment on the part of the photon to allow it to determine if it becomes a wave or a particle; they are always in both states, and the observation can only show us one state or the other. As to photons being able to discern whether the apparatus ahead will be able to detect anti-coincidence or not, no, the anti-coincidence is simply determined when single photons are being sent into the apparatus. They can never individually appear on both detectors if the splitter is really tuned to be able to direct a single photon advancing down only one of two paths.

The confusion might be in how the results detected are interpreted and how that interpretation is presented. If it is presented as "it appears that the photons take both paths", then the splitter did not display anti-coincidence, and the presence of multiple photons traveling together instead of individuality of the photons in the beam might be the loophole. If the result is presented as statistical locations on separate detectors caused by two separate beams of individual photons, then any interpretation of "interference" is an error in interpretation, unless the beam was not composed strictly of single photons, but instead had coincident photon pairs that would allow photon energy along both paths simultaneously.

It may very well turn out, as I proceed through the book and become familiar with the details of delayed choice and quantum eraser experiments, that my view of hidden variables vs. non-locality will change. That will happen when my model cannot account for the observations, and/or when the experiments prove that entanglement does not determine which spin each of the entangled particles has at the moment of entanglement, but instead, that determination is proven to occur at the moment of observation of one of the two in the entangled pair. I'm confident that the latter will never be proven, and that the former, my model being able to account for the observations of repeatable experiments, will be the case.

(4803)

Last edited: Dec 28, 2013
15. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Happy New Year!

To start the year 2014, we are going back to a topic discussed in my previous threads about the concept of "now" and of the continuum of time: time simply passes continuously and not discretely. That is one of the axioms of reality that I consider a "necessary" natural characteristic of the universe in order to explain light and gravity, which I try to do with my hypotheses. "Now" is shared by the entire universe, and the "present now" occurs simultaneously everywhere. That makes light the great communicator between locations, and the speed of light through the medium of space is considered to vary with the energy density of that space, and that variable must be considered in order to reconcile the simultaneity of events occurring in different locations during the same "nows".

Therefore, in my model, the speed of light through the medium of space is variable depending on the energy density of the medium of space. The energy density of space is a characteristic of the presence of matter, and is a consequence of inflowing and out flowing wave energy associated with gravity. That "variability in the speed of light" explanation replaces the time dilation explanation between objects that are in motion relative to each other. Time therefore always passes at the same rate, but the devices that we use to measure time reflect different rates of time's passing depending on the energy density of their local environment.

That explanation for the cause of apparent time dilation distinguishes my model from the consensus model, and reflects the fact that I model light and gravity in terms of the invariant foundational mechanics that govern them, as opposed to the concept of spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is equivalent to the effect that the variable energy density of the medium of space has on the speed and path of light. It is like comparing the gravity of my model with the curvature of spacetime in the consensus model. The result is the same, but the explanation of the "how" of gravity is different, and that has unifying ramifications between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in my model, assuming that there is just one reality common to both.

So how does going back to the concepts of time, and a time continuum come into play with where I'm going with my model this year?

The hypothetical invariant foundational mechanics that I use in my model to explain quantum action are based on as yet unidentified equations, not yet quantified and presentable, but that include hidden variables that are associated with the mechanics of light and gravity. Those supposed universal equations must contain variables in order to account for a "reality" that then supports my hypotheses about local hidden variables. I don't need to repeat that position except that there are always new members and a few of them may occasionally venture out here into Alternative Theories, and they might not have picked up on the fact that in terms of the debate about which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics you might prefer, my model is intended to support the Hidden Variables interpretations.

The notable addition to my model this year will be that among the "as yet unknown" variables is the "real" effect of individual and group mind; influences that can intentionally or unintentionally be imposed to change how the future "nows" unfold. In my model, events are all underpinned by the invariant natural laws that govern what will take place at the foundational level in real time, as time passes. Those laws are invariant. And yet the existence of intelligent free willed individuals who can learn the invariant natural laws means that we can change how those invariant laws cause the future to unfold.

There is no paradox in that new aspect of my model if you can distinguish between anticipating the future in your mind during the current "sequence of nows", and then, based on that current thinking, act on those thoughts in subsequent "nows". This is possible because the brain stores knowledge of "nows" as they occur and the mind can access a history of past events when thinking.

The thought enters memory as it occurs in the now, and the mind allows us to remain aware of that past thought. We can, therefore, implement the intent of the past thought by our subsequent actions, i.e. that intention that was hatched in past thoughts allows our actions in the present to change the events that occur in the future. In that way we influence events that might otherwise have been wholly determined by the invariance of the foundational level mechanics alone, without the imposition of "intent".

The concept of Individual and group "mind" or "think" characterizes the mind's role in the shaping of events that occur in the future. Consequently, mind and thought are consistent with the natural mechanics of cause and effect occurring in the "now". Our brains function with a time delay and so the mind is dealing with the events that have already occurred in the past "nows", but that allows us to think across a whole sequence of nows and imbed intentions into our queue of impending actions; actions that are thought out in advance. Thus we are able to produce outcomes that are planned and that reflect individual or group choice, as opposed to outcomes influenced by interpreting events with strictly random pasts and strictly probabilistic outcomes.

The distinction is between the local reality of the Hidden Variables interpretations of QM vs. the "spooky" non-locality of the Copenhagen interpretations. My model features the mechanics governing the events taking place at the foundational level that include the hidden variables; the "how" of light and gravity. With the Copenhagen interpretations of QM, all unobserved events are based on there being no local reality, but instead are based on the premise that the unseen events are random and probabilistic. Under "Copenhagen", there is no local reality until we intervene into the grand superposition by making an observation.

I hope I have conveyed the concept as to how the inclusion of the workings of our minds can play a role at the foundational level of local reality. Simply put, it boils down to the idea that when we think ahead, and act intentionally, that impacts a growing volume of the space at the foundational level, and that changes the energy density gradient of the foundational medium in that volume of space as the "nows" on the time continuum pass. The energy density gradient or structure of that medium would have evolved differently if we hadn't employed mental activity that ultimately made a change at the foundational level. The subtle part is that the unknown equations at work have variables in them that are set by our mental activity of the past, independent of the unthinking invariant action that takes place constantly in the "now" at the foundational level. That unthinking action is invariant, but our mental input is variable, and hence "thought" is part of the hidden variables included in my interpretation of how the universe works.

(4960)

Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
16. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
In my last post I made a case for "thought" being part of the hidden variables included in my interpretation of how the universe works, and as such, I am incorporating that concept into my model.

The impact that has on my model is that it corresponds nicely with the concept I discussed earlier about photons and their motion through the foundational medium. When a photon wave particle, with its specific number of individual quanta, and its lopsided trailing wave energy balloon, moves through the medium of space, it does so with a constant duality. It doesn't ever switch between being a wave and a particle, it is alway both.

That state of duality is an example of how I would characterize the term "superposition" in my model, and when I say that, I acknowledge that my use of the word should not imply some in-depth scientific understanding of quantum physics. It is just that I want to recognize that though the photon can display its particle nature in one circumstance, and its wave nature in another, it is never just a particle or just a wave, it is always both in terms of how I define particles and waves. That duality applies to all particles in my model.

So how does the incorporation of thought as a variable in equations that describe the invariant natural laws, correspond with the dual nature of particles in regard to their presence and their motion through the foundational medium?

The answer is that we can shape the energy density gradient of the medium through which particles are moving, and thus we can affect their motion by manipulating that gradient. There is nothing startling about that; it is not some great revelation, but it is an acknowledgement that an apparatus that we conceive of to send wave-particles to and through, is a thought filled process. It is therefore also an acknowledgement that when we are experimenting with wave-particle duality, the devices we use to do that are dependent on thought, planning, execution, and recording of data, all heavily impacted by the variables in the equations that explain natural law and how the universe works. Thought is therefore instrumental in the hidden variables, and the photon is extremely responsive to our planned efforts to guide its path.

(5094)

Last edited: Jan 12, 2014
17. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I emphasize the point that the duality of particles, and most apparently of the photon, pertains to what the popular science media refers to as the fundamental level of particle physics. The experiments and observations where a photon can act like a particle or a wave are fundamental level observations, and when fundamental particles interact, the effect of that interaction is observed and described in terms of fundamental level particle physics.

My model hypothesizes that there is a level of order below the fundamental level of particle physics called the foundational level. The foundational level is distinguished from the fundamental level by the concept that all fundamental particles are composed of wave energy. That means that the location and motion of a particle in any given "now" is taking place in an underlying medium of three dimensional "spherical" wave action in the foundational medium of space.

My model includes an hypothesis that "now" is simultaneous at all locations in the medium of space. In fact, at that level it is always now everywhere. Nothing happens outside of the universal now. However, things that happen in a given location are not taking place independently. Everything is connected in the foundation medium by a history of energy density fluctuations, and that history is always unfolding. Every point in space has its own history of energy fluctuations, and that history is continuous, not discrete. Motion in the foundational medium is wave energy and those waves expand spherically until their spherical expansion is interrupted when their leading edge intersects with the leading edge of another expanding spherical wave. Wave energy expansion and wave energy intersections are the components of changes to the wave energy density at any given point in the medium of space.

As each new "now" occurs in my model it is referred as the current moment in the passing of time, or simply the continuum of time. When time passes it does so in a way that the "now" is simultaneous everywhere, and so time passes at the same rate in all locations. The changes in point by point wave energy density therefore occur with the passing of time.

I emphasize this foundational level of action to acknowledge an exception to the concept stated in my last post that the photon is always both a wave and a particle, never one or the other. I now qualify that by saying it is true at the fundamental level. However, at the deeper foundational level, the photon and all particles are always just complex sets of waves that exist in the foundational medium, and can be defined by their point by point energy density pattern in foundational medium in the volume of space that they occupy at any point in time. All of those points have interconnected histories as the wave energy that establishes the present density pattern changes as time passes. The changes are a natural result of the nature of the spherical wave; it expands spherically until interrupted. Therefore, I identify spherical wave energy expansion as one of the foundational forces of nature; I call it energy density equalization.

(5201)

Last edited: Jan 17, 2014
18. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
With the foundational level and its continuous wave nature emphasized, there are some comparisons that can be made between the nature of the foundational medium of space, and the nature of consciousness. Don't go ahead of me here and try to intuitively guess what I mean by that, because I am not heading toward some universal consciousness that somehow feeds our thoughts and minds with some uncontrollable source of knowledge or understanding.

In my model the similarity between the foundational level of wave energy density fluctuations, and the nature of human consciousness, is the history of "nows". Our mind can have a thought in the "now", and that thought can be stored in the brain and be recalled out of the retained history of former nows, i.e. memory. Simultaneously, the current wave energy density pattern of the foundational medium is the result of all of the wave energy interactions that preceded it, i.e. the history of former nows. Putting those two hypothetical facts together, the mind forms memory out of the energy density fluctuations occurring within the brain as time passes.

That would make the mind in my model a configuration of particles at the fundamental level that have an ongoing common history of wave energy density changes at the foundational level associated with the particles making up the brain; particles that interact and change together in such a way that there is a presence of mind associated with it as the brain, and the human containing it, move in the medium of space. The closely related common history of the physical particles and their means of changing together, typifies wave energy "containment" of particles bound together as they move through space and time.

You may remember that when I was discussing the concept of the containment ratio of particles, containment was associated with a time delay. The time delay was a measure of the number of quanta in the particle and the length of time it would take for all of the energy contained in those quanta to be changed as the process of quantum action played out. In my model it is that time delay that enables the mind to exist and memories to be formed.

(5224)

Last edited: Jan 17, 2014
19. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I am now considering what a thought and a memory are in their various states of conception, retention, and recall.

I don't want to seem to be ignoring life itself as the host of thought and the carrier of memory. In my model, life is naturally generative and "evolvative", and the conditions for the generation and evolution of life, consciousness, intelligence, and self awareness are natural. That discussion is part of what I call Quantum Wave Cosmology, and of the Big Bang Arena process that I have described as "arena action" throughout my threads. That is the source of hospitable and habitable environments and the iterative process I associate with the generation and evolution of life.

This thread has reached the point in the development of my model where consideration of what physically occurs at the foundational level during thought conception, retention, and recall; all of which I hypothesize are effected via quantum action within the brain and nervous system. What is the role of the energy density patterns and fluctuations inherent within particles in the process of quantum action? How is the history of past "nows" at the foundational level associated with the inflowing and out flowing wave energy that establishes and maintains the presence of particles? Is there something more subtle than just the gravitational gradient in the inflow and out flow of wave energy from particles that carries information? I'll explore those thoughts in this section of the thread.

That does not make this portion of the thread a supposed biology lesson or a particle physics essay; it is just my layman science enthusiast/hobbyist contemplations, and the resultant outcropping of hypotheses, of which my model is composed.

To be continued ...

(5251)

Last edited: Jan 17, 2014
20. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I'm going to take a simple thought, and do a thought experiment about it. The thought is about picking a flower. I'm not including along with that simple thought any motivation or planning that would explain the whys and wherefores of why I am having the thought to pick the flower, though certainly there are many associated thoughts leading up to it. In addition to the thought to pick a flower, the act of picking the flower is included though. I don't consider there to be much learning necessary to pick the flower, and I have ample preconditioned muscle memory and well practiced dexterity to accomplish the task with only a minimum of learning necessary.

To simplify it, it is given that I am positioned in the garden, I am gazing upon the particular bloom, and I have moved my hand to be clasping the stem when the thought and act occurs. All that is left is to think the command to twist my wrist, which will result in the flower being picked, and so for this experiment the thought is to twist my wrist to perform the act of picking the flower.

The thought starts at a point in time which I designate as the initial moment of conception. I notice that such a thought seems to occur in my mind in real time, and takes only an instant to conceive and carry out. But upon further consideration, because I consider "reality" to be happening in the "now", including thought, then what seems to be an instantaneous thought or action actually has a duration from the initial moment or "now" of conception, to the "now" of the completion of the act to pick a flower.

One hypothesis then, fairly obvious, is that thought, regardless of how simple, takes time for the mind to accomplish. A thought therefore requires more than one "now" to be conceived and formulated. Another hypothesis is that, though I like to think that my thoughts occur in real time, i.e. simultaneous with the passing "nows" on the continuum of time, I have to acknowledge some time delay in the physical nature of the functioning of the cells involved in thinking. The particles of which those cells are composed take time to function, and as well, there is a time delay associated with the process of quantum action that governs the inflowing and out flowing wave energy that maintains and alters the presence of particles.

Two things come to light from that: 1) the act of having a thought requires short term memory because the thought itself has a duration as opposed to occurring in just one instant (one "now" on the time continuum), and 2) Since we think and act on a time delay, reality is occurring in advance of our thinking and acting; the perception of reality is a time delayed impression of the events that always are occurring in the "now".

I twist my wrist and pick the flower, and the reality is occurring as I think and act, but the reality I perceive is not my thinking and acting, it is the instantaneous sequence of nows that I only perceive after the fact.
(5349)

21. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Just like it is my preconceived ideas that lead me to support the hidden variables interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, I also have preconceived ideas about the unity of mind and thought that influence my support for what is called the Unitary Theory of Mind.

During the Big Wait, which this thread is dedicated to, is a perfect time for me to try to sort out for myself the corresponding aspects between hidden variables and the unity of human cognition. On the surface of it there seems to be a disconnect between the concepts. On the one hand, the hidden variables concept promotes the idea that there is invariant natural law that governs the shape of the foundational medium from this instant to the next, which of course then in turn governs all physicality as the continuum of "nows" unfolds. And on the other hand, the unity of human cognition allows us to influence the future by being able to have memories that linger in our brains to provide information to deal with while we do our thinking.

If there is a foundational level where the physical action is deterministic, in the sense that given the present "now", the next "now" is invariant, and if there is the ability of humans to intentionally influence the future, there must be a way to reconcile the two, since both are more or less axiomatic in my model.

What reconciles those concepts is the fact that there is a time delay between the invariant unfolding of "nows" and our intentional shaping of the unfolding of the future "nows"; the time it takes to think and act as in picking a flower. That time delay is a characteristic of everything physical because the physical, as I define it, has to do with what stands out from the foundational medium and can be perceived by the brain. The physical is what endures across the continuum of nows, and has a lingering presence, i.e. what we call the past which only exists as a result of memory.

This is not intended to be a scholarly essay or anything like that, but just an attempt of define what I mean by the unity of cognition, and the role of cognition in shaping the future. Cognition, to me, is a bundle of processes much like are mentioned in, "The Architecture of Cognition", by Anderson, 1983. He referred to it by theorizing that "memory, language, problem solving, imagery, deduction, and induction, are different manifestations of the same underlying system; A common cognitive system for higher-level processing."

Putting it to you like this, if it weren't for the existence of life, and what I think is a natural, repeatable evolution of the brain and memory as life is generated and evolves in any given enduring hospitable environment, then the universe and all of the physical events that take place in it would be solely deterministic based on uninterrupted unfolding of invariant natural law, "now" by "now". But because it is the nature of that solely deterministic unfolding of events in the "now" that generates life, and it is the nature of life to evolve the physical means for memory, thought, and intention on a time delay basis, then it becomes deterministic that there are natural influences that can impose time delayed intention upon the invariant unfolding of the next now, i.e. to change that unfolding of future nows.

I suppose that is a very difficult concept to you if your thinking varies from mine, but I also suppose that your explanation for the ability of humans to affect the future in spite of invariant natural laws that govern quantum events at the foundational level might be just as difficult for me to find conceivable.

(5423)

22. ### scheherazadeNorthern Horse WhispererValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,798
Hello once again, quantum_wave.

My horse has been attempting to explain the concept you have outlined above for years but it is apparently not that easy for humans to grasp. It also bears some small resemblance to my 'Thought as an energy form' thread on another forum. Very interesting to contemplate how the thoughts and experiences of others have the capacity to cross-pollinate our ideas.

The options of every life form in existence are predicated by the selections of all other life-forms in their immediate arena, most of which have no conscious knowledge of the choices or desires of all those other decision making bodies. It is only upon review that we may ponder upon the outcome if we had not been delayed and so missed that flight, if it had been ourselves and not the neighbor in line at the lottery terminal that day, had we been born into a country of conflict and limited resources instead of a more developed nation.

I also ponder upon those decisions that we take without second thought and ponder upon what 'triggers' us to suddenly examine or change a decision which we have not deviated from for years, especially when there are 'interesting' results.

Thank you in advance for tolerating my less than scientific conjectures upon the state of 'now'. It's shaping up to be a lovely day in the Yukon and I am off to enjoy it shortly. Stay well and continue your ponders. They make for interesting reading for many like myself who do not take the time to provide a record of what crosses our mind. My excuse is that I can't type as fast as I think, lol...

Also, my first choice in most situations is to ride a horse if the conditions allow.

23. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Hi Schez, Yes, I well remember your referenced thread and certainly enjoy the cross-pollination